Blackman's (1982) interpretation of Strahan (1981) is considered incorrect. The position is reiterated that no single index appears able to represent comprehensively the androgyny construct.
References
1.
BemS. L.The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1974, 42, 155–162.
2.
BlackmanS.Comments on three methods of scoring androgyny as a continuous variable. Psychological Reports, 1982, 51, 1100–1102.
3.
BryanL.ColemanM.GanongL.Geometric mean as a continuous measure of androgyny. Psychological Reports, 1981, 48, 691–694.
4.
HeilbrunA. B.Gender differences in the functional linkage between androgyny, social cognition, and competence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1981, 41, 1106–1118.
5.
KalinR.Method for scoring androgyny as a continuous variable. Psychological Reports, 1979, 44, 1205–1206.
6.
LubinskiD.TellegenA.ButcherJ. N.Masculinity, femininity, and androgyny viewed and assessed as distinct concepts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1983, 44, 428–439.
7.
MotowidloS. J.A scoring procedure for sex-role orientation based on profile similarity indices. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1981, 41, 735–745.
8.
SpenceJ. T.Comment on Lubinski, Tellegen, and Butcher's “Masculinity, femininity, and androgyny viewed and assessed as distinct concepts.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1983, 44, 440–446.
9.
StrahanR. F.Remarks on Bem's measurement of psychological androgyny: Alternative methods and a supplementary analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1975, 43, 568–571; correction 1976, 44, 316.
10.
StrahanR. F.Remarks on scoring androgyny as a single continuous variable. Psychological Reports, 1981, 49, 887–890.
11.
StrahanR. F.Methods for the measurement and statistical analysis of psychological androgyny. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association, 1982, Washington, D.C.
TellegenA.LubinskiD.Some methodological comments on labels, traits, interaction, and types in the study of “femininity” and “masculinity”: Reply to Spence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1983, 44, 447–455.
